This OA is filed on 31.05.2009 under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It relates to a departmental enquiry where
the applicant is also charged in a case of bribing. Hence, the issue involved is, what is the
effect of his acquittal on the departmental enquiry.

2. The facts as narrated by the applicant
are that he was appointed as Junior Stenographer in June, 1974, at Ludhiana,
then transferred to Mysore, then back to Ludhiana in 1978 and once again back
to Mysore in 1979. On 23.2.1982, an FIR
was filed in Delhi which named three private enterprises and some unknown
officials of Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI), Mysore, and
there quality control division of Delhi.
This complaint claimed that there was an attempt to cheat and defraud
the Corporation by use of bogus certificates in the fabric samples of these
three enterprises which were tested by CFTRI, Mysore. When the needle of suspicion pointed at the
applicant who was a Junior Stenographer to the Director of CFTRI, Mysore, a
charge sheet was issued to him on 22.6.1974 (Annexure-A/2) charging that he
accepted an amount of Rs.5000/- by way of motive or consideration or reward for
doing various acts of omission and commission in order to favour the said three
enterprises in the matter of testing of the coded samples of cotton fabrics
based on fumigation sheets received from the FCI (H.O), New Delhi. The charge in four parts, gives details of
illegal gratification of Rs.500/- on 24.10.1981, another Rs.500/- on
30.10.1981, another Rs.1000/- on 16.11.1981 and another Rs.3000/- on
3.12.1981. He was, therefore, suspended
and after conducting enquiry with due process, the Disciplinary Authority
imposed a punishment of dismissal vide order No.FT-19(20)/Vig/84/ 15126, dated
28.01.1986 (Annexure-A/4). He preferred
an appeal dated 3.3.1986 (Annexure-A/5) and the Appellate Authority has
rejected the same vide his order No. 8(54)/86-vig. Dated 13.05.1988
(Annexure-A/6).

3. Nearly, 21 years later, i.e., on
25.2.2009, in the cariminal case hoisted upon the applicant in SC No.137/07,
the applicant was acquitted as can be seen from Annexure-A/7 which is an order
dated 25.2.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi. Para 22 of the said judgment
states that the statements of two approvers who are actually from the
enterprises that are mentioned in the first complaint have given certain
statements which are not corroborated and therefore it would not be safe to
rely on their testimony. Hence,
disbelieving the testimony of the approver, all the accused are acquitted. 5 being the enterprises and 6th
being the applicant. No Appeal has been
preferred against this acquittal. Based
on this acquittal, the applicant gave a representation dated 26.26.3.2009
(Annexure-A/8) seeking permission to report for duty and the reminder dated
dated 8.5.2009 (Annexure-A/9), to which he has been informed on 6.5.2009 that
the matter was being examined and further progress would be intimated to the
applicant after a decision has been taken by the department.

4. Aggrieved, the applicant prays for a
direction to the respondents to consider his case for reinstatement with all
consequential benefits and also to treat the period of suspension as duty
period.

5. In the reply statement, the respondents
have first of all, challenged the application on the ground of limitation. However, we are not inclined to accept this
ground, because the applicant, having been acquitted from his criminal case in
2009, is within the time limit to approac this Tribunal. The respondents have claimed that the charge
levelled against the applicant was of having failed to maintain absolute
integrity and devotion to duty, thus, unbecoming of a servant of the
Institute. The Enquiry Officer has held
that the charge is proved. It is further
claimed that both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have
passed their orders after due application of mind. It is further stated that the applicant was
not acquitted on merit. He was a co-accused
along with five others, who all belong to the said three enterprises whose
fabric samples were under question. They
all were acquitted as the statements of the two approvers were not held as
creditworthy and thus, they got the benefit of doubt. In a criminal case, the crime has to be
proved beyond doubt. In contrast, in a
disciplinary proceeding, the preponderance of probability is to be considered. Applying this test, the applicant has not
tried to show any circumstance where the Enquiory Officer has gone wrong in
assessing the evidence available during the departmental enquiry. In fact, the Enquiry Officer has recorded
that there was a complete non-cooperation from the applicant. On these grounds, the respondents have
challenged the OA.

6. We have examined all the documents on
record and also considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. We find that the Enquiry Officer has
conducted a very thorough enquiry, has examined the witnesses and taken into
consideration all the documents and come to a reasoned conclusion. The Disciplinary Authority has also proceeded
as per Rules and has applied his mind before passing the order of
punishment. Even the Appellate Authority
has passed a reasoned order with full application of mind. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere
with the orders of both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.

7. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed being
devoid of merits. No order as to costs.

About Me

BIODATA http://leenameh.blogspot.in/2010/04/biodata.html
My website is
http://www.leenamehendale.com
My Geeta recital and nearly 250 edutainment films on energy conservation are available on CD. See all my blogs. They are being expanded with my 400+ articles and 20 books so far.
............मेरा हिन्दी लेखन http://leenamehendale.fatcow.com/articles.html